| Pete Dashwood 2006-10-31, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ehvo1o$jjb$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <dunuj2lsrlmfl2562ajued527airpmi4db@4ax.com>,
> Clark Morris <cfmtech@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> It is obvious that Space Aliens are stealing my brainwaves and implanting
> them in the heads of others yet again; I was saying almost this Very Same
> Thing in a meeting the other day.
>
> A user in the field noticed an error in a report that has been running,
> more-or-less unchanged, since some time around Magellan's
> circumnavigation. This hot, steaming load gets dumped into my lap; I
> ascertain that the last time the programs involved were compiled was for
> Y2K mods (anyone remember those?) and dig through the data.
>
> I find out that this subsystem is built around an inherent flaw, a naieve
> way of dealing with the complexities of 'how many two-w pay periods are
> in a given quarter of a year?'... this can be discussed in another thread,
> if anyone is interested. Anyhow, in the meeting mentioned above someone
> was complaining about the bad results, I explained what was going on -
> *always* a Fun Thing when dealing with folks who announce proudly 'Well,
> I'm not Technical, you know' - and concluded with:
>
> 'The problem lies, in essence, with how people are to be counted by office
> for a pay period. Given that this report does not count 'fractional
> people'... when I run across Person A who makes $A for Office A in pay
> period 1 and then I run across Person A making $B - which may or may not
> be equal to $A - for Office B in pay period 2 of the same quarter... how
> do you want that person and those dollars counted and totalled for a given
> month in a given quarter? I don't know what you want - if I were a mind
> reader then I might not be doing this for a living - so you have to tell
> me how you want to see this; once you tell me the code will write
> it'sself.'
>
> (room goes silent)
>
> The fellow then replies, in a small, weaselly voice, 'I don't see why you
> just can't turn it back and make it the way it was before.'
>
> 'This *is* the way it was before, either the data have changed or someone
> is noticing the error for the first time. If I change the data then the
> results are inaccurate; I cannot change the fact that someone notices
> errors. So... when Person A makes $A for Office A in pay period 1
> (etc)... how do you want that counted?'
>
> 'I *still* don't see why *you* just can't turn if back and make it the way
> it was before.'
>
Before your final decision on this, Doc, I strongly recommend that you read,
(and get the Weasel to read) "A sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury. It may
help him to understand why you 'can't turn it back and make it the way it
was before'.
Pete
PS here's a link....
http://www.onebee.com/writing/2005/...ound_of_thunder
You will need to download the .pdf (61K) as the story is copyright and
cannot be published (legally) on a web page.
|